I am not a rules guru by any stretch, but I think this is wrong. if you lose a ball, and don't go back to the tee, you're not playing by the rules. If you're not playing by the rules, then you cannot post your score. ESC is about handicap calculation, not scoring.

Again, not in a tournament. For a hole that is unfinished the rules require that you post the score "you're most likely to have made". Since it's not a competitive tournament round we're talking about, posting your ESC score for the hole is completely in accordance with the rules. No harm no foul.

Again, not in a tournament. For a hole that is unfinished the rules require that you post the score "you're most likely to have made". Since it's not a competitive tournament round we're talking about, posting your ESC score for the hole is completely in accordance with the rules. No harm no foul.

Only in a stroke play tournament, must you actually finish the hole.

Yes, but what if you are trying to score a personal best and prefer to do it by the actual rules rather than the ESC rules. You have a group behind you and have no reason to suspect that you will not find a ball that you hit, but end up not finding it. I thought you said in the personal best thread that it didn't count unless it was by the actual rules.

One of the thing I was aiming for with my proposed rules was that a player would never have to walk back to re-hit a shot. I follow the current rules as much as I can, but doing when playing with others never seems too popular and it one rule that I have broken on numerous occasions.

So the justification for changing the rules is now that too many people don't follow the rules? Most recreational players roll the ball, take mulligans, and give themselves putts. Do we change the rules to accommodate them all, in the name of simplicity? Or is it appeasement?

I'm not sold by this line of thinking. Rules are created by men to establish a game that people enjoy. The rule makers think its better to have stroke and distance, some players do not. Its a debate about what the game should be. Its no more appeasement than the anchored putting bad is appeasement to its proponents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

As for those that don't go back to the tee if they've failed to hit a provisional outside of a tournament, the rules already accommodate that. Post ESC and move on. No harm, no foul......and certainly not complicated.

I am not a rules guru by any stretch, but I think this is wrong. if you lose a ball, and don't go back to the tee, you're not playing by the rules. If you're not playing by the rules, then you cannot post your score. ESC is about handicap calculation, not scoring.

This is incorrect. The handicap manual allows for up to 5 holes to be unfinished or unplayed. If not played, you would post the hole par plus any handicap strokes you would be allowed at that hole. If unfinished, you would post the most likely score you would have made had you finished out the hole. You are correct that ESC has nothing to do with anything at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I am not a rules guru by any stretch, but I think this is wrong. if you lose a ball, and don't go back to the tee, you're not playing by the rules. If you're not playing by the rules, then you cannot post your score. ESC is about handicap calculation, not scoring.

Again, not in a tournament. For a hole that is unfinished the rules require that you post the score "you're most likely to have made". Since it's not a competitive tournament round we're talking about, posting your ESC score for the hole is completely in accordance with the rules. No harm no foul.

Only in a stroke play tournament, must you actually finish the hole.

As mentioned above, you must finish at least 13 holes correctly or the score is null and void for posting purposes. ESC only applies if your most likely score for an unfinished hole would be more than you are allowed to return for a hole.

I don't know how much evolution over time may have affected how baseball is played (the only significant rules change I know of is the DH bastardization by the American League), but when someone decided to make it easier for the ordinary Joe to play, he added a bigger ball, shorter base paths, a different pitching method. As a result, it was no longer baseball - it became softball. Looks sort of like baseball, but the differences are monumental, even though the goal is still the same, to throw and hit the ball and score runs.

I don't think this is a fair comparison to what Mefree is proposing. He's not talking about making the hole bigger, the ball bigger, the grooves bigger, nothing at all to do with how you actually play the game. He's simply suggesting a couple of different (minor) rules in reference to penalty situations.

Assuming we can all agree that he would ditch his "you can drop anywhere you want to" idea and replace it with "two club lengths" I thinks its perfectly fair to say that his proposed changes ARE NOT (even remotely) changing the game fundamentally.

Like dsc pointed out, these don't come into play that often anyway. I'm pretty sure we see a pro on TV deal with OB less often than we see Webb Simpson or Nick Watney shank one. Even myself, who is an admitted sprayer of the ball, only hits an OB ball once every couple of rounds. And when you factor in that most of those rounds that involve OB balls aren't making it into my top 10, my handicap is going to be affected almost none. Perhaps 1/10 of a shot?

And the other thing ... if course A can arbitrarily say that canyon over there is a hazard, and course B says this canyon over here is OB, course B can also arbitrarily change their minds and say its now a hazard. Changing OB rules to the equivalent of an ESA hazard would accomplish the same thing as that course deciding to call it a hazard. I don't see how one could really argue that that would fundamentally change the game.

You are correct that ESC has nothing to do with anything at this point.

Yes, ESC is definitely off topic at this point, but I do think that rules that allow players to complete more holes in real life are an improvement. I think we got side-tracked because people were noting that they sometimes don't complete a hole by the rules of golf because they don't want to go back to hit a shot that turns out to be OB or lost when they didn't think they needed a provisional. My proposal solves that issue.

What I would like to see discussed by those that think my proposed rules changes fundamentally change the game is what exactly you would change about how you played the game if these rules were adopted? Would you try to change any of your swing fundamentals? Would you change how you practice? Would you change your strategy on any holes on the courses you play most often?

Perhaps it should be recognised that Nicklaus was not any sort of authority on the rules of the game from which he earned his lifestyle.

The rules make the game. What would be the point of Snakes and Ladders without the snakes?

Just because a player has no idea of course management, why should the rules be changed to accommodate him?

I wasn't aware of anyone being put in prison or sent to the chair for not following the RoG. Play it whatever way you like (which is unlikely to be the way everyone else likes) but don't say you are playing the same game as tournament players.

I don't know how much evolution over time may have affected how baseball is played (the only significant rules change I know of is the DH bastardization by the American League), but when someone decided to make it easier for the ordinary Joe to play, he added a bigger ball, shorter base paths, a different pitching method. As a result, it was no longer baseball - it became softball. Looks sort of like baseball, but the differences are monumental, even though the goal is still the same, to throw and hit the ball and score runs.

I don't think this is a fair comparison to what Mefree is proposing. He's not talking about making the hole bigger, the ball bigger, the grooves bigger, nothing at all to do with how you actually play the game. He's simply suggesting a couple of different (minor) rules in reference to penalty situations.

Assuming we can all agree that he would ditch his "you can drop anywhere you want to" idea and replace it with "two club lengths" I thinks its perfectly fair to say that his proposed changes ARE NOT (even remotely) changing the game fundamentally.

Like dsc pointed out, these don't come into play that often anyway. I'm pretty sure we see a pro on TV deal with OB less often than we see Webb Simpson or Nick Watney shank one. Even myself, who is an admitted sprayer of the ball, only hits an OB ball once every couple of rounds. And when you factor in that most of those rounds that involve OB balls aren't making it into my top 10, my handicap is going to be affected almost none. Perhaps 1/10 of a shot?

And the other thing ... if course A can arbitrarily say that canyon over there is a hazard, and course B says this canyon over here is OB, course B can also arbitrarily change their minds and say its now a hazard. Changing OB rules to the equivalent of an ESA hazard would accomplish the same thing as that course deciding to call it a hazard. I don't see how one could really argue that that would fundamentally change the game.

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You are correct that ESC has nothing to do with anything at this point.

Yes, ESC is definitely off topic at this point, but I do think that rules that allow players to complete more holes in real life are an improvement. I think we got side-tracked because people were noting that they sometimes don't complete a hole by the rules of golf because they don't want to go back to hit a shot that turns out to be OB or lost when they didn't think they needed a provisional. My proposal solves that issue.

What I would like to see discussed by those that think my proposed rules changes fundamentally change the game is what exactly you would change about how you played the game if these rules were adopted? Would you try to change any of your swing fundamentals? Would you change how you practice? Would you change your strategy on any holes on the courses you play most often?

But it raises more issues than it "solves" (and I'm not even agreeing that it's a solution to anything). Shooting your personal best is meaningless if you have to change the rules to make it happen. It would also be meaningless against my PB which was was played in competition under the 1988 edition of the Rules of Golf.

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

Gdads point, was that the course has the ability to "fundamentally" change the way the game is played from one day to the next, by declaring the area where the ball was hit as OB or a hazard.

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

You have a very valid point about the risk reward changing on certain holes. My premise is that pros are still going to successfully avoid OB most of the time under my rules while high cappers wiil still be clueless regarding strategy or their ability to keep the ball in play. Strategy conscious mid-cappers might be the ones who alter how they play certain holes the most. For you personally, what holes on the 1-3 courses you play most often would you change your strategy if you were playing under my rules?

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

Yes, I did. :)

Except I think you're being a little bit casual with how drastic of a change this would make in players' strategies. I don't know why anybody would risk trying to carry a dogleg over a hazard anymore than they would a dogleg over OB. I try to avoid penalty strokes at all costs. Any penalty strokes. If I'm playing Cypress #16, I don't go "Sweet, the ocean is only a water hazard so it's no big deal if I don't carry it, I can just drop on that downhill lie in the rough at the edge of the cliff and be 170 out lying 3, instead of 215 from here with a tee. And I certainly don't want to be sitting in that fairway over there 40 yards from the green with a chance at an up and down for par." That's silly.

------------

To Mefree: I will say, though, that I think you diminish your stance by continually going back to the "this is how a lot of amateur hacks already play, so lets appease them" argument.

You have a very valid point about the risk reward changing on certain holes. My premise is that pros are still going to successfully avoid OB most of the time under my rules while high cappers wiil still be clueless regarding strategy or their ability to keep the ball in play.

But isn't that how it should be? There's more to it than skill. It's the ability to make decisions on the course based on your skill relative to the difficulty of the course, including the ability to avoid obstacles. It makes sense that better players would avoid trouble. Some of it is due to their reasoning, their ability to exercise control and evaluate risk.

Sometimes probably not. Obviously a course cannot go OFF their own property to consider something playable. They can't require that Old Man Johnson allow everybody to take giant divots out of his front lawn. However, within the confines of their own property, certainly they can make decisions on where they want you to play or not to play. I've played courses that have added areas of OB that weren't there before, and I played a tournament at a course that called all of the brush areas hazards that weren't marked as hazards prior to that.

And because of that, because I feel that it's arbitrary enough, I don't see how bringing an OB penalty back in line with an ESA hazard penalty (you cannot play it, you have to take the penalty and drop, you just don't get punished the distance) fundamentally changes anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2512

But isn't that how it should be? There's more to it than skill. It's the ability to make decisions on the course based on your skill relative to the difficulty of the course, including the ability to avoid obstacles. It makes sense that better players would avoid trouble. Some of it is due to their reasoning, their ability to exercise control and evaluate risk.

But nobody is talking about eliminating penalties, just refining them slightly. OB would still be an obstacle. I'll repeat what I said to fourputt ... I don't try "less hard" to avoid hazards than I do to avoid OB. It's all penal, and I try to avoid all of it at all costs. Sometimes, unfortunately, I don't, and based on my belief that it's somewhat arbitrary in nature, I don't see why the penalties couldn't be similar.

Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?

If you apply stroke and distance, and assume you make your shots afterwards, your 2nd tee shot is 3 and you're on the green in four.

If you've got to drop where it crossed the OB, then you're lying two, on the tee side of the dog leg. If the OB is wooded or there is some sort of obstruction, then you've got to punch out and hope to get on in 4--the same as stroke and distance. If its open and labelled OB for no apparent reason, then I guess there might be a scenario when you can go for another hero shot and hope to be on in 3 (of course, the safe play is down the fairway then on in 2).

So basically, you're saying that such a rule would fundamentally change the nature of golf because if you're playing a course that has a dog legged hole, and if that hole has OB in the bend, and if the OB area does not contain an obstruction, and if you could get on the green from the far side of the bend on your third shot, you might be more inclined to attempt the hero shot because the penalty for failing is 1 stroke not 2?

If you're going to argue that this rule fundamentally changes the game, stick with lost balls, not contrived examples of OB.

Perhaps it should be recognised that Nicklaus was not any sort of authority on the rules of the game from which he earned his lifestyle.

The rules make the game. What would be the point of Snakes and Ladders without the snakes?

Just because a player has no idea of course management, why should the rules be changed to accommodate him?

I wasn't aware of anyone being put in prison or sent to the chair for not following the RoG. Play it whatever way you like (which is unlikely to be the way everyone else likes) but don't say you are playing the same game as tournament players.

But he was the best player to ever play the game that the rules define. He had a specific opinion on the OB rule thinking it should be changed, as I pointed out in my first post. Just because he wasn't a rules guru, doesn't mean his opinion should be be considered. I am paraphrasing but he said something like "A player should not be penalized extra just because the course doesn't own the property." He was referring to issues with pace of play.

I play by the rules and will continue to play by them. I understand the reasoning behind the OB rules and abide by them, but see both sides of the debate having validity.